Page:The Victoria History of the County of Surrey Volume 3.djvu/336

 A HISTORY OF SURREY

��No Inclosure Act is known, but a great deal of open heath and down has been inclosed.

From 1850 to 1890 the common rights of most of the tenants of Banstead Manor in Leigh and Horley, called IValda, i.e. the Weald, in the Survey of 1325, were bought out by private arrangement.

There are a considerable number of gentlemen's houses. Court House is the residence of Mr. B. A. Goad ; Banstead Hall of Mr. D. V. James ; The Larches of Mr. H. Lambert, C.B. ; Tadworth Court of Mr. C. D. Morton ; Banstead Place of Mr. Justice Neville.

There were two private schools in 17*5 in which reading and writing were taught. In 1837 Lady Arden of Nork endowed a Church school at Burgh Heath with 205 ; it was rebuilt in 1885, and enlarged in 1901. In 1857 a school, now County Council, was built in the village, and enlarged in 1906. In 1874 a School Board was formed for Banstead, Tadworth, and Kingswood, and in 1875 Tadworth and Kingswood School was opened by the Board. A Wesleyan school was built at Burgh Heath in 1880. The Kensington and Chelsea Pauper Children's School, built in 1880, is in Banstead. It is in a fine position, arranged in 23 separate Homes, with chapel, swimming bath, workshop, laundry, gymnasium, &c. The Boys' Surgical Home was opened in 1895. There is a Church Institute, which was opened in 1906.

A great feature of Banstead is the London County Lunatic Asylum on Banstead Downs, originally opened in 1877. It now consists of nineteen blocks of buildings, with a chapel, and houses for the attendants, and will hold 2,240 patients. It is built of white brick.

There is a Baptist mission room in the village, and a Baptist chapel at Tadworth.

The earliest records of B4NSTE4D MANORS refer to gifts of land there, the first being a grant, in 680, from Caedwalla, King of Wessex, to Bishop Wilfrid ; " the second, a grant made by Frithwald, subregulus of Surrey, and Bishop Erkenwald to Chertsey Monastery, in augmen- tation of the lands given at the foundation of the abbey, the lands mentioned in this second gift being 'xx mansas apud Benesteda cum Suthmaresfelda,' ** of which confirmation was afterwards made by King Edgar." It does not appear, however, that the monastery held land at Banstead in later times.

Banstead Manor was held, prior to the Conquest, by Alnod, very possibly indentical with 'Alnod Cild,' who was one of the largest landowners in Surrey in the time of King Edward." In 1086 Banstead, in Wallington Hundred, was held by Richard of Odo, Bishop of Payeux. 20 Among the appurtenances of the manor was a house in Southwark worth 40^." Alnod,

��when he had held the manor, had had a demesne house in London, which Adam son of Hubert held of Odo.' 8 In the time of Henry I Tirel del Maniers gave the church to the monastery of St. Mary Overy, 89 but there is no other proof that he was lord of the manor. It was held in 1169-70 by Nigel de Mowbray, whose wife Mabel had received it from her father as her marriage portion.* She seems to have been the daughter of Roger, Earl of Clare ; it is therefore possible that the Richard of 1086 was the great Richard of Tonbridge himself.* 01

William de Mowbray son of Nigel was one of the barons who opposed King John in 1215; he was among the twenty-five who were appointed executors of the great charter, and as such was excommunicated by the pope. He was afterwards taken prisoner at the battle of Lincoln, but, by promising to give Banstead to Hubert de Burgh, lord chief justice, he redeemed his other lands before the general restora- tion later in the year."

In 1226-7, after William's death, Nigel de Mowbray his son quitclaimed all right in the manor to Hubert." The master and brethren of the Knights Templars were given seisin of the manor in 1233, to hold as security for the debts which Hubert de Burgh owed them. 33 He seems, however, to have recovered the manor, as he died at Banstead in 1243,*' and, after the death of his widow Margaret, his son John de Burgh held the manor, 84 receiving a grant of free warren there in 1 260."

In 1272 John de Burgh alienated Banstead without royal licence to William de Appeltrefeld," who was ordered to hold until the king's return to England. 38 The next year John de Burgh granted the manor to the king and his heirs, with the exception of lands to the value of loos, given to Anselm de Gyse.* 9 Pending the completion of the conveyances Appeltrefeld was allowed to hold,* but John de Burgh finally quitclaimed his right in 1274.*' Appel- trefeld later surrendered all claim in it, for which remission the king pardoned him 1,000 marks, in which he was bound in the King's Jewry." The king seems to have visited the manor soon after he acquired it. In 1276 the reeve of Banstead rendered account of his expenses there, which included 67*. II d. for repairs in the hall, kitchen, and other rooms ' against the coming of the king ' ; money spent on tiling and carpentering and on the carriage of materials was also accounted for, and 3 3/. 4^. was spent in making glass windows for the hall.'* The manor-house was probably close to Banstead Church.

���DE BURGH. Cults

seven lozenges vair.

��** Birch, Cart. Sax. i, 81.

38 Ibid, i, 64. But see under Chertsey for the doubtful character of the early charter*. ** Ibid, iii, 469.

25 y.C.H. Surr. i, 282, note I.

46 Ibid. 3O2, note 9, and p. 287.

W Ibid. 285-6. Ibid. 302*.

29 Manning and Bray, Hist, of Surr. ii, 582. Rolls in the Kings Court (Pipe R. Soc.), ziv, 42. This roll is, in places, very illegible, but in view of Manning's deeds and those concerning Southmcrfeld and the Prior of Southwark (see rectory), there seems no doubt that the places

��referred to in the roll (. . . feld and . . . stud) are Southmerfield and Banstead, particularly as they are stated to have belonged to Tirel del Maniers and after to Nigel de Mowbray.

80 Manning and Bray, ut supra ; Fife R. 1 6 Hen. II (Pipe R. Soc.), xv, 164.

" Cott. MS. Cleo. Cot iii, foL 302.

81 Ibid. Matt. Paris, Chron. Maj. iii, 22; Diet. Nat. Biog.; Cal. of Close, 1231-4, p. 1 66. It may be noted that he did not derive his name from Burgh in this parish, nor did Burgh derive its name from him.

254

��88 Feet of F. Surr. East. 1 1 Hen. III. 88 Close, 17 Hen. Ill, m. 13. 4 Matt. Paris, Hist. Angl. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 477 ; Diet. Nat. Biog.

85 Chan. Inq. p.m. 44 Hen. Ill, no. 14.

86 Cal. of Chart. 1257-1300, p. 27.

8 ? Akkrev. Rot. Orig. (Rec. Com), i, 20.

88 Ibid. 21.

88 Cal. of Pat. 1272-81, p. 41.

40 Cal. of Close, 1272-9, p. 64.

41 Feet of F. Div. Co. East. 2 Edw. I. 43 Cal. of Close, 1272-9, p. 170.

48 Mins. Accts. (Gen. Ser.), bdle. 1010, no. 8.

�� �